[REVIEW]: gpu-ISTL - Extending OPM Flow with GPU Linear Solvers

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @multitalentloes (Tobias Meyer Andersen)
Repository: https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_gpuistl_paper
Version: 2024.10
Editor: @prashjha
Reviewers: @pratikvn, @berenger-eu
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8c35a29762fc508215904c0e1dd16013"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8c35a29762fc508215904c0e1dd16013/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8c35a29762fc508215904c0e1dd16013/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8c35a29762fc508215904c0e1dd16013)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@pratikvn & @berenger-eu, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @prashjha know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @pratikvn

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.71 s (1685.5 files/s, 398883.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                   617          24852          39348          92073
C++                            437          16384          12267          73855
SVG                              5              4             23           4704
CMake                           16            483            285           4298
TeX                             27            617            130           4024
CUDA                            12            375            286           2202
Text                             7              0              0           1879
Bourne Shell                    25            261            119           1377
OpenCL                          23            124             97           1011
XML                              1              0              0            520
Python                           9             53            112            344
Markdown                         6            100              0            339
JSON                             3              0              0            124
YAML                             2              4              0             40
MATLAB                           1              8              0             20
Dockerfile                       1              2              3             13
awk                              1              1             24             10
TOML                             1              0              0              7
INI                              1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                          1195          43268          52694         186843
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  3007	Arne Morten Kvarving
  2216	Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen
  1444	Andreas Lauser
  1255	Kai Bao
  1206	Tor Harald Sandve
  1024	Markus Blatt
   894	Bård Skaflestad
   796	Joakim Hove
   320	Liu Ming
   226	Robert Kloefkorn
   185	Roland Kaufmann
   184	Kjetil Olsen Lye
   176	Xavier Raynaud
   174	hnil
   170	Tong Dong Qiu
   146	babrodtk
   143	Håkon Hægland
   103	Tobias Meyer Andersen
   100	Vegard Kippe
    89	Robert K
    82	Jørgen Kvalsvik
    74	osae
    73	Paul Egberts
    69	T.D. (Tongdong) Qiu
    67	Alf Birger Rustad
    67	Bernd Flemisch
    63	Stein Krogstad
    52	Lisa Julia Nebel
    45	Kristian Flikka
    36	Antonella Ritorto
    36	goncalvesmachadoc
    34	OPMUSER
    34	Pål Grønås Drange
    33	Benjamin Faigle
    31	Steinar Foss
    30	Philipp Nuske
    30	Razvan Nane
    29	Markus Wolff
    28	Cintia Goncalves Machado
    28	Halvor Møll Nilsen
    28	jakobtorben
    26	Klaus Mosthaf
    26	kel85uk
    25	Melanie Darcis
    24	Jose Eduardo Bueno
    24	Ove Sævareid
    24	Svenn Tveit
    23	David Landa Marban
    23	Rohith Nair
    22	Elyes Ahmed
    20	Torbjørn Skille
    19	André R. Brodtkorb
    19	David Werner
    19	Franz G. Fuchs
    19	Paul
    19	chflo
    17	Christoph Grueninger
    17	tqiu
    16	josh bowden
    12	Josh Bowden
    11	Alf B. Rustad
    10	Halvor M. Nilsen
    10	Jostein Alvestad
    10	Jostein R. Natvig
    10	andrthu
     9	Kjell W. Kongsvik
     8	Katherina Baber
     7	jilocode
     6	Andrea T. Lonn
     6	Michael Sargado
     6	Trine Mykkeltvedt
     6	WesselDeZeeuw
     5	Edvin Brudevoll
     5	Franz Georg Fuchs
     4	Anders Matheson
     4	Erik Hide Sæternes
     4	Fredrik Gundersen
     4	Júlio Hoffimann
     4	Nicolas Schwenck
     4	Peter Verveer
     4	Trine S. Mykkeltvedt
     4	dependabot[bot]
     3	Alexander Kissinger
     3	Jens Olav Nygaard
     3	Justin Chang
     3	Jørgen Kvalsvk
     3	Karin Erbertseder
     3	rube051
     2	Andreas Thune
     2	Erik Hide Saeternes
     2	Giacomo Marchiori
     2	Joshua Bowden
     2	Kristian Hole-Drabløs
     2	Lars Petter Øren Hauge
     2	Tom Hogervorst
     2	Tor Harald Sanve
     2	Trine S Mykkeltvedt
     2	daavid00
     2	locture
     1	Andrea Tronstad Lønn (ST MSU DYN)
     1	Baurzhan Muftakhidinov
     1	Bjørn Spjelkavik
     1	Eduardo Bueno
     1	Georg Zitzlsberger
     1	Holger Class
     1	Jakob Torben
     1	Jean-Paul Balabanian
     1	Jochen Fritz
     1	Matthew Goodfield
     1	Timo Koch
     1	Viktor Szukitsch
     1	Vishal Jambhekar
     1	WesselZ
     1	Zeeuw
     1	kristinf
     1	nairr
     1	paean
     1	steink

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1137/15M1026419 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102831 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.05.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.012 is OK
- 10.2118/218015-pa is OK
- 10.3390/mca24030070 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Computer Architecture, Sixth Edition: A Quantitati...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation Using MATL...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CUDA, release: 12.2.r12.2
- No DOI given, and none found for title: hipify-perl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Heterogeneous-computing Interface for Portability
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Bandicoot: C++ Library for GPU Linear Algebra and ...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-540-75755-9_82 may be a valid DOI for title: The Iterative Solver Template Library

❌ INVALID DOIs

- --- is INVALID

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1228

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[prashjha]

Dear @pratikvn, @berenger-eu, please read the first couple of comments in this thread and create your review checklist. You can read the reviewer guidelines here. Also, you can browse the closed "REVIEW" issues on the "joss-reviews" repository to get some ideas on how to complete the reviews. Good luck!

[multitalentloes]

I am happy to reach the review stage, looking forward to the process @pratikvn @berenger-eu!

[pratikvn]

Review checklist for @pratikvn

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@multitalentloes) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?